From owner-cvs-lib  Thu Mar 12 02:12:10 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-lib>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA06928
          for cvs-lib-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:12:10 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-lib)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA06890;
          Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:11:54 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02610;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:11:45 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA27301;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:11:41 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <19980312111141.18854@follo.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:11:41 +0100
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>
To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>,
        John Birrell <jb@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/csu/alpha Makefile
References: <199803112041.MAA03395@freefall.freebsd.org> <19980311212112.54062@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i
In-Reply-To: <19980311212112.54062@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>; from John-Mark Gurney on Wed, Mar 11, 1998 at 09:21:12PM -0800
Sender: owner-cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 11, 1998 at 09:21:12PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> wouldn't most of this hoopla go away if we built our tools static
> instead of dynamic?  also, it would allow us to not build the shared
> libs when initially building the tools...
> 
> I've also thought about digging in to see about using your x86 box to
> do a buildworld, but end up with alpha or sparc binaries...  I think
> this would help the porting effort among other things...
> 
> anybody have any objections to these ideas going into the tree (after
> testing of course :) )?

The 'static tools' idea is one I'm slightly sceptic of - it depends on
how easy it would be to switch back and forth, I guess.

As for crossbuilding: Do it!  (But be aware that there are a lot of
irritating small issues to it - NetBSD hasn't got functional
cross-building for all platforms).

Eivind.